Beta - Alpha Strike Point Value System.pdf: This PDF contains the beta rules for unit point calculation.PV Test 2014-02-13.xlsx: Spreadsheet contains full stats for nearly all BattleTech units for Alpha Strike, along with new point values derived by excel formulas.New Point Values.xlsx:s above, but only containing unit names, their type, and new point value (no macros or formulas)

ProtoMechs. It looks like they are still being worked out just like every other unit even though you split the profile up in game. A Centaur is still way cheaper than a Minotaur but the spilt profile is very similar if you follow my meaning?

Yes, everything is costed based on their collective stats: this isn't so much an artifact of the points system as it is the gameplay. As how Protomechs are fielded in AS is one of those things under review for the future, you may see the point calculation change in turn.

My local crew were considering hitting the table with a series of games to test the new point system. However, we've run into a minor hiccup.Under the old Alpha Strike point system, we've gotten used to 160 point company level Pick-up games.

Maybe I'm blind, but with the new Beta point system being introduced and aggressive unit re-pointing across the board for testing, was it ever stated what the new "160 point" equivalent value is?

Interestingly enough the 4K and 4T Rokurokubi models have the same PV. The only difference is one special ability; ENE. At first I thought this was a sign of imbalance but now I'm thinking that with two points of structure there's little real difference.

Light Assault Group - An Orwellian appelation applied by the Draconis Combine to troops haphazardly equipped with whatever expendable equipment was lying around the maintenance yard, for the purpose of throwing their lives away for the greater glory of the Dragon, see also Human Bombs.

Hello. This is my first post, only got around to registering in response to the Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test.

Been strictly playing Alpha Strike since the rulebook was available for purchase, and have been using the stats from the MUL. The current point system was not perfect, but still usable, although me and my gaming partners do face some odd point balancing issues in our games.

My gaming partners tend to argue that the ON1-M should be higher in point value compared to the ON1-K in point value to offset the slightly higher attack value and additional SPECIALs on the ON1-M even though it is a little fragile in terms of armor or structure.

Now, I have got my copy of the revised BETA Point Value System, and in the BETA Point Value System, the Orion ON1-K is now 39 points versus the Orion ON1-M at 36 points - In other words, the ON1-M is slightly cheaper despite slightly higher attack value and additional SPECIALs on the ON1-M even though it is a little fragile in terms of armor or structure.

So the question is : Is the new calculation a little too harsh in penalizing structure and armor values, or is this just a fluke for the Orion ON1-M vs ON1-K?

Interestingly enough the 4K and 4T Rokurokubi models have the same PV. The only difference is one special ability; ENE. At first I thought this was a sign of imbalance but now I'm thinking that with two points of structure there's little real difference.

Amusing all the same though.

There's a less than 3% chance of scoring an ammo hit in Alpha Strike, so ENE isn't worth anything for the same reason CASE isn't worth anything. It's just too small an effect to be priced out.

Hello. This is my first post, only got around to registering in response to the Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test.

Welcome to the forums, and thanks for taking the time to provide feedback.

Quote

My gaming partners tend to argue that the ON1-M should be higher in point value compared to the ON1-K in point value to offset the slightly higher attack value and additional SPECIALs on the ON1-M even though it is a little fragile in terms of armor or structure.

Now, I have got my copy of the revised BETA Point Value System, and in the BETA Point Value System, the Orion ON1-K is now 39 points versus the Orion ON1-M at 36 points - In other words, the ON1-M is slightly cheaper despite slightly higher attack value and additional SPECIALs on the ON1-M even though it is a little fragile in terms of armor or structure.

So the question is : Is the new calculation a little too harsh in penalizing structure and armor values, or is this just a fluke for the Orion ON1-M vs ON1-K?

It's a fair question, but I think things are reasonable in that regard, in that 1 less point of armour, 3 less points of structure, and no OV are nothing to sneeze at: the -M has significant drawbacks here to offset SNARC and an extra point of damage at medium and long. To put it another way, do you feel the extra one potential damage point a turn worth the ability to take 4 less damage in return? Bear in mind that Flak and LRM aren't worth anything right now.

It's a fair question, but I think things are reasonable in that regard, in that 1 less point of armour, 3 less points of structure, and no OV are nothing to sneeze at: the -M has significant drawbacks here to offset SNARC and an extra point of damage at medium and long. To put it another way, do you feel the extra one potential damage point a turn worth the ability to take 4 less damage in return? Bear in mind that Flak and LRM aren't worth anything right now.

That is a good point - pun not intended - on the potential damage vis-a-vis absorbing more damage. Appreciate it a lot. Got something to discuss now with my gaming partners then.

While we are still on topic on the calculation, I like to point out two Alpha Strike Units that my gaming group uses whose BETA Point Value is... interesting.... if compared to the current value:

Granted, both unit die easily regardless of armor or structure values, but with the BETA point value, the PTN-2M with a very slow movement, inability to operate in space or underwater, with Long and Medium Range damage values, has a higher point value compared to the jumping and subjectively harder to hit WSP-3W.

Yes, it is just one point of difference between the BETA values of PTN-2M and WSP-3W - and different games value damage range brackets differently - but still, doesn't it feel odd that the WSP-3W is cheaper compared to the PTN-2M in the new calculation?

The Wasp would normally be 9.5 points, rounded up to 10. However, as it only has short range weapons and a move of 12" or less, it gets the Brawler modifier, which gives it a 25% discount. It's meant to duplicate what I call the Charger Effect, which is that the Charger doesn't suck just because it has short range weapons, but because it has such a hard time bringing them to bear as well.

However, perhaps the effect should only kick in for units moving 10" or less, not 12" or less. What do others think?

When Alpha Strike was first released, I ran a few test scenarios to get familiar with the ruleset. For Inner Sphere vs. Inner Sphere I found the game balanced, but for a combined arms IS vs Clan battle the results were very one-sided in the favor of the Spheroids. During the test, an elite artillery lance of LT-MOB-25 proved incredibly effective for their points.

As an exercise, I recalculated the point value of the two forces under the new system. Previously, they were both 185 points. Under the new system, the IS force came in at 580 points, compared to 386 points on the clan side. This calculation much more accurately reflected the way the actual game went.

By the way, I'm primary a lurker here, but wanted to thank whomever came up with this system. I think that this is exactly what Alpha Strike needs (assuming it is rolled into the MUL!).

I have a question on how Skill Rating calculations are done with the beta point value system. From page 4 of the PDF:

More Experienced: for each 1 point of Skill Rating lower than 4, multiply the Final PV by 1 + (0.1 per Skill Rating below 4, min Skill Rating is 0).

Does this "for each" mean that the multiply operation is repeated more than once in cases where the skill rating difference is greater than one? In other words, does a 10 point unit at Skill Rating 2 cost 13 (=round(10 * 1.1 * 1.2)) or 12 (=round(1.2*10))? The former seems a bit better balanced, but it was not clear from the document if this was the intent. If it is the first one, then it might be good to include a table like that on page 26 of Alpha Strike with the final constants.

Thanks for the clarification. This system definitely make upgrading pilots an attractive option again, and looks to really address previous shortfalls for clan forces. Looking forward to some playtesting!

By the way, are there any plans to apply the new PV as errata to the original Alpha Strike, or is this an additional system similar to BV2?

I've been playing with it off and on as the paint on my models dry and so far I think it's doing an adequate job of portraying raw table ability. For example the Loki Prime is 27 points in Alpha strike, while having performance that is just around the same level as a Wolverine II. New points system brings them roughly equal in points value with each other with the Wolverine ending up more expensive due to armor, jumping, and a higher defense mod.

However I think some of the smaller more fragile units end up a bit on the expensive side either because they mount artillery or have high defensive modifiers. Just off the top of my head I thought that there should be a 'dies to a sneeze' modifier similiar to the brawler one. THis way things like artillery infantry or savannah masters that both die to almost any amount of damage don't end up overcosted when compared slower and or sturdier units.

Though again that's a random though and I've yet to playtest the points in a game of alpha strike.

If we're just talking strictly about the points values, then I think this is a step in the right direction. I ran the numbers for a Cluster worth of troops for a game some friends of mine and I are having this weekend and saw the points skyrocket from 410 to 746. I understand that the changes are supposed to help with smaller point value units running roughshod over heavier, supposedly tougher units that in a normal game of Battletech wouldn't have too much to worry about from those little buggers. I just don't see the points differential in the Beta numbers being enough to make a difference. If you take a look at a Gladiator Prime the Beta number becomes 50, up from 27. That's an increase of 185%. The raw differential is 23 points. Lets say my opponent want to field 50 points of forces also, and fields 3 Locust-1Ms at 45 points base (a differential of 33 points from the original numbers) and decides to increase the skill ratings on two of them to be 3 apiece, taking his point total to 49. Let's also say that he's moderately skilled and can maintain the range he wants to (Medium in the case of the 1M) so that he can do maximum damage AND lets also say that with his 3 units to my one that he is able to get 1 unit into my rear arc each turn. Assuming no terrain factors, my Clan Assault Mech will be needing 9s to hit the Locusts (because I was unable to increase its skills because of its cost) and will destroy one each time it hits them (27.8% of the time.) Meanwhile, my opponent will be hitting me on 8s (41.7% of the time) for two of his units and 9s on the other. Assuming the math holds, that means that he should be have chewed through my armor and be hitting structure within 8 turns and I will only have eliminated 1 of the Locusts. With the steep drop off in AS units once they've taken structure damage and the nature of the critical hit charts I'm not even going to pretend that my math is good enough to predict how fast my Gladiator is going down after that, but I think we all know its going to be pretty quick.Again, I think that the Beta numbers are a step in the right direction, because before them in the example above my opponent would be able to field an army of Locusts with legendary gunners and cut me to pieces in no time flat. I just don't think that the Beta numbers do enough to even the playing field, ESPECIALLY when you look at Clan units versus IS units. The Locusts went up 375% apiece but the already low cost of those units means that the raw points TOTAL isn't enough to make taking the Gladiator an attractive option over the lights. Its like the difference between a head-on collision at 100mph or 90mph; either way its not pretty.

When Alpha Strike was first released, I ran a few test scenarios to get familiar with the ruleset. For Inner Sphere vs. Inner Sphere I found the game balanced, but for a combined arms IS vs Clan battle the results were very one-sided in the favor of the Spheroids. During the test, an elite artillery lance of LT-MOB-25 proved incredibly effective for their points.

As an exercise, I recalculated the point value of the two forces under the new system. Previously, they were both 185 points. Under the new system, the IS force came in at 580 points, compared to 386 points on the clan side. This calculation much more accurately reflected the way the actual game went.

By the way, I'm primary a lurker here, but wanted to thank whomever came up with this system. I think that this is exactly what Alpha Strike needs (assuming it is rolled into the MUL!).

How was Zellbrigen used in the game?

Logged

"New players, regardless of age, need to know two things about a wargame. How to blow stuff up and what faction is painted in his favorite color. All the rest can come later when they are hooked." -- A.G."But the problem is that it seems to have been made by someone who equates complication with complexity, and that just ain't so." -- iamfanboy

27.8% for the Gladiator over 8 turns is more than 1 kill. It's got nearly a 2.15% chance of having killed all three by turn 3. (27.8% * 27.8% * 27.8% = 2.15%?) thats nearly 5% by turn 4 and keeps going up from there.?Also, I don't think you considered the reduced damage the Locusts will do each time one of them is destroyed. And, I beleive the PVs are taking into account the proposed standing still option where that Gladiator could choose to increase its chance to hit those Locusts fairly dramatically in return for giving up its own TMM. That would be hell for those Locusts, with the Gladiator having the option of giving itself a 50% chance of hitting one each turn?

Interesting. Does the last section indicate that CGL will be officially supporting large Aerospace units in Alpha Strike??? If so, that's actually...really nice.

I also noticed that thrust seems to be weighted extremely low for large craft. There seems to be little meaningful difference in cost between a low-performance merchant dropper like the Buccaneer (1.5) and something insane like the Dragau (4.5). For a massive difference in combat performance, one costs three points more than the other.

Logged

*God Bless Regulus.*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.* "Want someone out of a building for sure? Fire a magnesium parachute flare through the window. He’ll leave."

27.8% for the Gladiator over 8 turns is more than 1 kill. It's got nearly a 2.15% chance of having killed all three by turn 3. (27.8% * 27.8% * 27.8% = 2.15%?) thats nearly 5% by turn 4 and keeps going up from there.?Also, I don't think you considered the reduced damage the Locusts will do each time one of them is destroyed. And, I beleive the PVs are taking into account the proposed standing still option where that Gladiator could choose to increase its chance to hit those Locusts fairly dramatically in return for giving up its own TMM. That would be hell for those Locusts, with the Gladiator having the option of giving itself a 50% chance of hitting one each turn?

I did take the death of a Locust into account, actually. By turn 4 the Locusts should have hit only 3 times on 11 shots (with one of them having been killed by turn 3 or 4), and one of those shots going into he Gladiator's rear, doing an average of 2.3 damage each hit. As for the standing still option, you are correct in that I did NOT take that into account. I chose not to so as not to bring tactics into the equation. I went purely off of math. If the Gladiator stood still then the Locusts would hit on 5s and a 6, standing an 83.3% chance of doing 7 damage that turn (with one firing from the rear arc). Assuming the Gladiator hit and killed one that turn (at only a 50% chance) he would be left with only 2 armor points, and only be able to shrug off one more hit from a Locust; which would still have a much higher chance of hitting it then the Gladiator would of hitting them. As for the 2.5% chance of getting 3 kills in 3 turns, I'm willing to bet my chances of winning a game against those odds.

The Wasp would normally be 9.5 points, rounded up to 10. However, as it only has short range weapons and a move of 12" or less, it gets the Brawler modifier, which gives it a 25% discount. It's meant to duplicate what I call the Charger Effect, which is that the Charger doesn't suck just because it has short range weapons, but because it has such a hard time bringing them to bear as well.

However, perhaps the effect should only kick in for units moving 10" or less, not 12" or less. What do others think?

Thanks for the response. Interesting description for the "Charger Effect".

For that, I think 10" or less would be idea - anything less and we will throw in the rest of 8" into it, which might be a bit too much.

Also, just want to voice out that I am primarily a lurker here, but I thought I should help voice out a thing or two to help Alpha Strike - it is now my primary gaming method for BattleTech, and the BETA point system is a step in the right direction. O0

I did take the death of a Locust into account, actually. By turn 4 the Locusts should have hit only 3 times on 11 shots (with one of them having been killed by turn 3 or 4), and one of those shots going into he Gladiator's rear, doing an average of 2.3 damage each hit. As for the standing still option, you are correct in that I did NOT take that into account. I chose not to so as not to bring tactics into the equation. I went purely off of math. If the Gladiator stood still then the Locusts would hit on 5s and a 6, standing an 83.3% chance of doing 7 damage that turn (with one firing from the rear arc). Assuming the Gladiator hit and killed one that turn (at only a 50% chance) he would be left with only 2 armor points, and only be able to shrug off one more hit from a Locust; which would still have a much higher chance of hitting it then the Gladiator would of hitting them. As for the 2.5% chance of getting 3 kills in 3 turns, I'm willing to bet my chances of winning a game against those odds.

The odds of a 5, 5, and 6 all hitting is .833 * .833 * .722 = 50.9%? Not 83.3%. Still not great news for the Gladiator. But neither would be the Gladiator hitting a Locust first turn, also around 50% likely. And I think shooting in the rear is a tactic. Just as putting your back against a hill/building would be.The Gladiator is paying for 4 long range damage. You didn't include it at all. If you don't use the long range, it's not going to be worth its cost. I think you're right the Locusts have the advantage here, but I think you might be overstating how much.

I also noticed that thrust seems to be weighted extremely low for large craft. There seems to be little meaningful difference in cost between a low-performance merchant dropper like the Buccaneer (1.5) and something insane like the Dragau (4.5). For a massive difference in combat performance, one costs three points more than the other.

It was felt that speed wasn't actually all that valuable for aero units (other than the magic over-10-Thrust threshold), what with no TMM and no terrain to move over. Would you disagree? If so, why, and how might you want to fix it? Detail is important. Thanks.

It was felt that speed wasn't actually all that valuable for aero units (other than the magic over-10-Thrust threshold), what with no TMM and no terrain to move over. Would you disagree? If so, why, and how might you want to fix it? Detail is important. Thanks.

In the case of ASFs, I agree with your rationalization. However, if WarShips are being used (read: we're in a large-scale aerospace battle), I feel that thrust will have a somewhat greater impact on tactical mobility, positioning, and the like. A massively improved ability to bring your weapons to bear at effective range should be worth more than the handful of points that it is now.

A pseudoexponential solution could be nice, but I'd go with a simple multiplier. Say, (Subtotal PV)*(1 + 0.05*THR). This way, THR5 would have a multiplier of 1.25, THR7 would have 1.50, et cetera. You could tweak the number up or down if you aren't thrilled with the PVs it generates. Thanks for responding to my comment!!

Logged

*God Bless Regulus.*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.* "Want someone out of a building for sure? Fire a magnesium parachute flare through the window. He’ll leave."

Thanks for the response. Interesting description for the "Charger Effect".

For that, I think 10" or less would be idea - anything less and we will throw in the rest of 8" into it, which might be a bit too much.

It should definitely be 10" or less.

I've noticed one error in the PV provided there, so anyone using it, don't take them for granted - the Fire Moth-H is listed as costing 13 points, when (unless my math is WILDLY wrong) it should be 16.

Offensive Value = 5.5

Defensive Value = 10.25

Move Rate 6.25 = 26*.25

DIR 4 = 3*1.4, round to nearest .5

Total = 15.75, round to nearest 16

It makes sense if in an alpha version the Brawler modifier were applied, but not here - and the Fire Moth-H is bread-and-butter to me so naturally I noticed it.

Other than that, I won't have complaints until I actually test the thing, but I do like that artillery costs a fair chunk more now!

I've noticed one error in the PV provided there, so anyone using it, don't take them for granted - the Fire Moth-H is listed as costing 13 points, when (unless my math is WILDLY wrong) it should be 16.

Move Rate 6.25 = 26*.25

There's your issue: AS only records per 2" of movement, so move is costed the same, i.e. you pay for every 2" of move, not every 1". Therefore it should be 13, not 26.